Sehat v. Progressive Universal Insurance Company
Plaintiff: Ms. Subrina Sehat
Defendant: Progressive Universal Insurance Company
Case Number: 3:2014cv01433
Filed: September 4, 2014
Court: US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office: Portland (3) Office
Presiding Judge: Paul Papak
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 8, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 239 ORDER: For these reasons, the Court concludes Plaintiff's appeal is frivolous, and, therefore, Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status should not continue for Plaintiff's appeal. Regarding Referral Notice 237 . Signed on 3/8/2017 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (joha)
February 2, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 232 ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings andRecommendation (# 219 ). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS WSCO'sMotion (# 201 ) to Dismiss, GRANTS Ryan Corbridge's Motion (# 203 )to Dismiss, GRANTS Progressive's Motion (# 211 ) to dismiss, andDISMISSES this matter with prejudice. Signed on 2/2/17 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (eo) Copy mailed to plaintiff.
May 16, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 181 ORDER: Adopting the Magistrate's Findings & Recommendation 179 : Granting WCSO's Motion to Dismiss 135 for Insufficiency of Process and Dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff's claims against Deputies O'Reilly, Wiley , Mock, and John and Jane Does; Granting WSCO's Motion to Dismiss 135 and Dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff's claims against the remaining Defendants; Denying as Moot WCSO's Motion to Strike 135 ; Striking all othe r pending Motions in this matter with leave to refile after Plaintiff files her Third Amended Complaint; and Granting Plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint consistent with Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation 179 and this Order no later than 6/30/2016. Signed on 5/16/16 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (gm)
August 26, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 99 ORDER: The Court ADOPTS as modified Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation (#56). Until Plaintiff files a Second Amended Complaint and/or Defendants file further dispositive motions, this matter shall proceed only on Plai ntiff's claims against Progressive for breach of contract and Plaintiff's claims against WCSO for excessive force, conditions of confinement, public entity liability, due process, and excessive fine. The Court defers to the Magistrate Judge to set a deadiine for Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint to amend only the conspiracy claim against WCSO and Claims 1-4 and 6-8 against WCSO.See attached 10 page Order for full text. Signed on 08/26/2015 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (bb)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Sehat v. Progressive Universal Insurance Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Progressive Universal Insurance Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Ms. Subrina Sehat
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?